The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which serves as the starting point for calculating the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to a tort, means the time when the victim, etc. reasonably and specifically, recognized the facts requiring the tort, such as the occurrence of damage, the existence of an illegal harmful act, and proximate causal relation between the harmful act and the occurrence of the damage. Whether the victim, etc. is deemed to have actually and specifically recognized the facts requiring the tort should be reasonably acknowledged by taking into account various objective circumstances in each individual case and by taking into account circumstances practically and specifically enabling the claim for damages.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da19025, Jul. 23, 2015). (B)

The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence of employment, and determined that the Plaintiff’s right to claim damages against the Defendant runs extinctive prescription from September 24, 2009, on the ground that, before September 24, 2009, the Plaintiff already informed the Defendant of the occurrence of damages due to the Defendant’s breach of duty of disclosure, the illegality of harmful acts, and the perpetrator, which submitted a written opinion on the Defendant’s prior notice

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the starting point of

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The obligor’s exercise of the right of defense based on the extinctive prescription is also the principle of good faith, which is the major principle of our civil law.